• Tilgare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m not exactly sure that it DOES contradict the law, which is the problem.

    My hope for this case is that it sets the precident of crushing their bullshit terms of forced arbitration before this happens again and deems terms like these unenforcable. To date, I’m not aware of anyone challenging this in court - meanwhile every company in the country is adding terms like these to their software agreements. So let’s throw this shit out for good.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      Disney winning sets a precedent that will ultimately lead to vigilante justice by necessity.

      If Disney wins, then our “justice” system does not work and cannot be trusted, thus leading people to doing what they need to just to survive when every company starts using that clause to prevent us from holding them responsible for anything at all.

      And if that’s the case, I guess I need to dig out my mask and cape, and get back to work as a crime fighter.

      • Tilgare@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah, it certainly has the potential to go sour too. And if they were shopping around for favorable courts, that could be more likely than I would hope. Because to your point, our justice system does not actually work particularly well as it turns out. If the highest court in the land is so corrupt, all these little courts with even less visibility and oversight scare me.

      • Openopenopenopen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If there is an arbitration agreement can’t I just destroy the park and they can’t sue me?

        I mean if they kill my wife I might as well treat the ceo in kind, they agreed to the arbitration agreement too.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          The issue is the agreement is written in their favor. You give up your rights, but they don’t. I’d have to read it to be sure, but I’d be fairly confident in saying that it’s going to be written to favor them.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve actually wanted to write a story like this;

        Have an ultra-brutal “antihero” character like Punisher, who does extremely violent shit to many “only slightly evil” parties. Each time, as part of their calling card, they leave behind a message to the effect of “We do not have a fair court system, and so I am creating one.” Biggest victims include judges, but not many lawyers - and they aim for an end result where large organizations don’t try to lobby their way out of problems, but instead argue them on true merits in court.

    • Verdorrterpunkt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I was being general, didn’t write that i suppose. I am also refereing to companies trying to void warranties for no legal reason etc. There’s plenty of contradictory agreements out there.

      Edit: Typo